Leaving for here I tried to realize my role in these intricate processes, for which the whole world is a scene. And now, when I’m trying to solve the Russian riddle and am occupied with business unlinked with the “picnics”, I got the necessary information from all over the world from people completely unfamiliar to me! This is possible, as I now understand, only in one case: the whole my activity aimed to solving the mystery of “picnics” and their connection with the “black Tuesday’s” events, is going inside the course of matrix enclosing these events. And for not committing follies I was to understand how those two worldviews differ one from another. But I’ve got one doubt after all I’d heard here.

Please, Mr. Holmes, I’m ready to help you resolve your doubt. By I ask you to take my retelling of the information with leniency.

Well, I’ll try to state my case. Since the discussed information should be available for everyone, I think that for an abundance of complicated terms there should be simple images. And when one needs, he or she should be able to expand and rebuild with these images all necessary attributes of the two worldviews in his or her memory.

Quite right, Mr. Holmes. Such simple images exist. And the Russians told of them a lot. They are a mosaic and a kaleidoscope. Everyone is able to understand how a “mosaic” differs from a “kaleidoscope”. All pieces of glass in mosaic are connected one with another. If one moves or rotates one of them it causes the movement of not only nearest but also of rather far pieces. And though some picture’s fragments can be somehow distorted, its whole substance remains the same; no matter how does one turn the very picture. One is able to examine a mosaic picture in details up to necessary scale, to choose, remember and visually recall the whole picture as well as its single fragment.

But a kaleidoscope is a horse of a different colour. Any slight turning or a simple jog will change the substance of the picture appearing in a kaleidoscope, and every time a picture will be new and charmingly fantastical. But in contrast to a mosaic picture, a next picture of “kaleidoscope” can be neither predicted nor visually recalled. Why? – Because all the pictures in kaleidoscope are substantially empty. One sees the same unformed heap of glasses, but reflected by the system of mirrors. This system also catches any the slightest changes in the order of glasses observed in a kaleidoscope.

Since the phenomenon called a “worldview” belongs to the unconscious psychical levels, the words “mosaic” and “kaleidoscope” are just symbols, indicating its two types, which possess all the above-listed properties of “mosaic” and “kaleidoscope” accordingly. Any other types of worldview could be brought to these two. The world understanding is the creation of the worldview type, which one’s psyche is devoted to. But it belongs to the consciousness, thus it’s expressed in certain words. It means that a mosaic world understanding corresponds with a mosaic worldview. As well as a kaleidoscopic world understanding corresponds with a kaleidoscopic worldview. One can conclude from this that a mosaic worldview is unified and whole, and everything is cause-and-effect related within it. Within such worldview the world is predictable, i.e. it is stable in predictability under the influence of external, internal factors and ruling. In other words, any new facts, event, phenomena or processes, become possessions of a mosaic worldview, just complete or make more exact the substance of the already formed whole picture of the world. From here the mosaic world understanding naturally develops an idea that the objective reality is cognisable.

In difference to a mosaic worldview, a kaleidoscopic one is a list of unconnected casual facts, events, phenomena and processes. Within such worldview the world doesn’t possess stability in predictability. It means that any new facts, event, phenomena or processes, become possessions of a kaleidoscopic worldview, changes beyond recognition the whole picture of the world. This fastens a stereotype that the world is incognisable. That’s why when it comes to worldview the consciousness labels with words only some primary maximally generalizing categories discussed earlier. These categories could be divided into two groups:

matter, information, measure;

matter, energy, space, time.

With all this the second group of images essentially is secondary regarding the first one (something like a reflection or “echo” of the first group). But those, whose worldview is nearer to the kaleidoscopic vision of the world, mistakenly take it as the primary.

From this, those, who operate with the first group of images at unconscious levels of psyche, take the endless Universe as the process of the triunity of matter, information and measure. And the world appears for them as a whole mosaic picture, in which everything is cause-and-effect conditioned. And those, who operate with the second group of images (matter, energy, space and time) at unconscious levels of psyche, take the surrounding world as a kaleidoscope of unconnected casual events.

These words – “matter, information, measure, energy, space, time” – are just “fingers” indicating objective phenomena, which appear in a form of images at the unconscious levels of psyche and are hard to distinct even because they are taken as the maximum, primary and generalizing everything. And everybody, to whom these images appear on the level of consciousness, is free to call them with his own words relying on the conceptual and terminological system available to their professional level. You should know how people in Russia respect Pushkin, Mr. Holmes.

Yes, Mr. Salem, on the day of my departure from London my friend Watson and I spoke much about Pushkin. We get to conclusion that his creation is somehow mystically connected with the “picnics”.

I’d like to say more, – Salem took up the new topic and opened a paper-case taken from the study. – The Russians claim that Pushkin genetically was proficient in the knowledge rather equal to the knowledge of the Ancient Egyptian hierophants. His mother’s father belonged to the noble Ethiopian family that could be traced to one of the Ancient Egypt ruling dynasties. In addition one of Moses’ wives was an Ethiopian and even Freud wrote that Moses had belonged to Egyptian zhrechestvo. I.e. Pushkin was able to distinguish historically real Moses from Moses described in the Bible on the basis of the information proceeded through the family aggregors. And an extract from his early poem “Gavriliada” can prove it. – With these words Salem took some sheets from the paper-case. – I don’t warrant the rhythmical similarity, but the conceptual part is completely reproduced as appreciated by Russian specialists who speak English perfectly.

I wouldn't agree my narration

With that what Moses was recounting:

He tried to charm a Hebrew with a fantasy,

He grandly lied and they were hearing him.

The Lord awarded him for style and duteous mind,

Moses became a famous gentleman,

But as for me, I'm not a court historian,

And I don't need a haughty prophet rank!

Having read the poem Salem settled back and attentively looked at his interlocutor waiting for any objections. Holmes silently looked at the heart of dark garden.

Well, what you can say about this poem, Mr. Holmes?

Only one: I wish I knew Russian. So I’m looking forward to the commentaries.

I think in this poem Pushkin didn’t say what was historically real Moses, but tried make a reader know that biblical figure of Moses didn’t suit him. In the beginning of the 19^th century many people in Russia considered this poem to be a “mistake of youth”[71] of the young talent. But these “youth’s mistakes” were a dangerous sign for the devoted to the skill of ruling social processes. The poem told that somebody had appeared in Russia, who under certain circumstances was able to distinguish the true Afflatus given through the prophet from the tale about the afflatus, created by those for whom such righteousness was unacceptable. This “somebody” was ready to show the mankind real aims of “the owners of Scripture”[72]. And he could continue the work started by Ehnaton three millennia ago, as his enemies thought.